Well I am talking about the shows. What is it that makes them different, what about their souls are different.

Click to expand...

Does that matter? Even if their "souls" are different, that just means that a director has to adapt his style to fit the tone or genre or "soul" of whatever his current project is.

There's no reason a director can't make a gritty crime drama, then turn around and make a frothy romantic comedy that's completely different in tone. Ditto with different varieties of science fiction and space opera. You do STAR WARS when you're doing STAR WARS and you do STAR TREK when you're doing STAR TREK . . . and, hopefully, you don't forget which franchise you're working on today.

All of this talk about "souls" boils down to, well, what talk about souls always does: a distraction from what's real. When you run out of actual facts to support your position, start gibbering about "soul," and "essence." Since neither are actual entities that can be defined, you can claim whatever you want.

Well I am talking about the shows. What is it that makes them different, what about their souls are different.

Click to expand...

Does that matter? Even if their "souls" are different, that just means that a director has to adapt his style to fit the tone or genre or "soul" of whatever his current project is.

Click to expand...

I certainly think Abrams will be capable of both. He's got a chance to basically manage the team he grew up rooting for as a kid. Based on that, and the ownership he probably feels for SW as a life-long fan, it will be interesting to see if SW fans think he caught the franchise's "soul" or not. They may scrutinize him and be more critical than some Trek fans were.

It's a hypothetical imperative. If you want "X," you should do "Y." In our case, the hypothetical is economic: If you wish to make money with a film franchise, then you should be attentive to tastes of your audience.

If they wish to make money (trust me, they do), then they should be attentive to the tastes of their audience. If they wish to make money, they owe us something attuned to our tastes, so that the bills will flow freely from our pockets.

Well, if you're going to parse technicalities to this degree in a causal discussion board, ok. They are beholden to their shareholders. Technically, as long as they convince the shareholders that a profit will be made, in some fashion or another, even with a release date of 2065, then they are free to do so. Of course, you knew perfectly well that I meant the "when they damn well please" in relation to the general public. I forgot I was responding to the kind of pedant who looks for technical exceptions to make tangential points in order to avoid conceding the larger, more obvious point. Won't happen again.

Click to expand...

We should note that the "economic" and "property" defenses of these franchises we find on these boards assert a creative, even arbitrary license enjoyed by the studio.

Hence we find statements like,

"Their only job is to make money. They have no responsibility to please hard core fans."

"They own it. They paid for it. They can do whatever they wish!"

I have participated in making statements like these myself, but we should note that these comments have limits. More importantly we should note that the warrants of economy and property implicate us in discussions of both.

If we are to deprecate artistic/thematic concerns in light of the ruthless demands of business, then it is only sensible to consider not only what demands studios make of films, but what demands stakeholders make of studios. If we are to play the economic Darwinism card, then we will find that it is Darwinism all the way down, and that even our puffed up studio chiefs are themselves just scrambling for a piece of the action in the great circle of life (if you can excuse a Disney reference and Trek reference in the same sentence).

In short, this is not mere pedantry, but a natural implication of swimming into these waters.

I'd say they're quite skilled at doing so, given the very high degree of happiness they have, collectively, engendered among the public (measured by the only criterion that matters--the number of people who paid to see the work).

In that case, their fates seem rather promising, given the evidence available. But they remain free to offer what they want, when they want (subject, of course, to shareholder approval--don't want to forget the technicalities).

Click to expand...

You're still not quite grasping the economic imperative. The shareholder is only one aspect of this relationship. To the extent that the simply wish to succeed, they must respect the tastes of their audience.

Certainly. People are free to talk all they like--whether they like Abrams' work, hate it or are unmoved by it. Never have I said otherwise. However, I will continue to say, as I am entirely correct in the matter, that no artistic producer (in the broadest sense, encompassing all manner of formats) owes anything in particular to the audience prior to receiving compensation of some sort and, subsequent to that compensation, owes ONLY an artistic product. NEVER does such a producer owe anyone whatsoever any form of satisfaction.

Click to expand...

Well, if we are speaking of "artists," then we are speaking of individuals who may not wish to profit and who are not beholden to make profits for anyone else. Artists may simply wish make art for art's sake and have no (or a very limited) desire to even exhibit their artwork.

Producers and studios, however, are not artists, but people seek profit through entertainment. And those who promise entertainment in exchange for payment (e.g., musicians, jugglers, singers, hypnotists, magicians, popular writers) are indeed obligated to deliver what they promise. Should they fail to meet that obligation, their mandate of profit will not be met. Pure and simple.

You go in knowing what to expect, and when it's done right, you're satisfied. And, a well-made cheeseburger is harder to find than one would think it should be, too.

Click to expand...

Who doesn't love cheeseburgers?

There's an independent place two blocks from my front door, Stage Burger, that has the best cheeseburgers around. It's hard to find a place in this part of the country that offers sliced avocado - as distinct from guacamole, which a lot of places do.

Cheeburger, Cheeburger isn't bad, either, but they're more notable for their "frings" baskets.

Click to expand...

I'm more of a hamburger guy myself. Dairy and I don't get along.

Five Guys is dangerously good. It's probably just as well the nearest outlet is about an hour away.

You're still not quite grasping the economic imperative. The shareholder is only one aspect of this relationship. To the extent that the simply wish to succeed, they must respect the tastes of their audience.

Click to expand...

I understand the economic imperative just fine, thanks. And while "respect[ing] the tastes of their audience" is certainly helpful for success, it is not strictly required that they do so. They can choose to try something new and hope it works out.

That said, it is overwhelmingly clear that Abrams has "respect[ed] the taste of [his] audience". That he has not respected the tastes of a small minority of the audience does not obviate his overall success. And that's because he doesn't OWE any particular member of the audience anything other than a product to experience. And that remains the ONLY thing he, or any other producer of entertainment, owes the audience (and only for some form of compensation).

And those who promise entertainment in exchange for payment (e.g., musicians, jugglers, singers, hypnotists, magicians, popular writers) are indeed obligated to deliver what they promise. Should they fail to meet that obligation, their mandate of profit will not be met. Pure and simple.

Click to expand...

As long as they provide an entertainment product, in exchange for compensation, they owe the audience nothing else. Certainly not individual satisfaction. They hope they provide satisfaction--they are not obligated in any way to ensure it. That is true whether it's a busker in the metro station or the next installment of Superman on the big screen.

No matter how fanatical one might be about a particular form of entertainment, "satisfaction is NOT guaranteed".

Should they fail to meet that obligation, their mandate of profit will not be met. Pure and simple.

Click to expand...

So then we all agree that Abrams met that mandate?

This isn't something nebulous like TV ratings, where we can argue about things like the effect time-shifting and downloading shows can affect ratings.

Paramount spent 'A' amount of dollars on the project, and earned 'X' from ticket sales, 'Y' from home video and 'Z' from broadcast/cable rights. If 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' are far greater than 'A', then Abrams satisfied his employers and seemingly the public that bought the product.

We can argue the artistic merit til the end of time, that is going to mean something different to each individual, but the economic argument that Abrams didn't do his job simply doesn't exist.

I prefer the TNG era Treks to the new films, but why shouldn't Trek be re-thought for a modern audience?

There's just no reason to be so protective over franchises. I was pissed when Lucas tried to erase his original cuts from history, but as long as I still have the originals available for me I don't care about whatever other new installments come out.

Out of all the people who could have possibly been asked to make a new Star Wars or Star Trek film, the only two people who could have not completely butchered it are Abrams and Wheadon.

I look forward to seeing the next completely re-imagined version of Star Trek in 2031.